Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #319342; Docket #321598; Published
Judges Ronayne Krause, Gleicher, and Stephens; 2-1 (Judge Gleicher concurring); Opinion by Judge Ronayne Krause
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 312 Mich App 291 (2015); Link to Opinion 
Link to Concurrence
On 5/27/2016, the Michigan Supreme Court DENIED the application for leave to appeal (Justice Markman, dissenting); Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 published Opinion by Judge Ronayne Krause (with Judge Gleicher concurring), the Court of Appeals held that where a commercial transportation company failed to insure one of its vehicles and the driver of that vehicle is also personally uninsured, the no-fault insurer of other vehicles owned by that same company is responsible for paying PIP benefits, because MCL 500.3114(4) extends no-fault liability to the insurer of the vehicle owner.
In these consolidated cases, the claimants were injured while driving uninsured vehicles for two different commercial transportation companies. Claimants in both cases, Stanley Hughes and George Slack, did not have personal no-fault insurance. Titan Insurance had been assigned to handle both claims. In the claim involving Hughes, Titan filed an action against American Country Insurance, claiming that because American Country insured other vehicles owned by the commercial transportation company, American Country was responsible for paying PIP benefits. The trial court granted American Country’s motion for summary disposition and Titan appealed. In Docket the claim involving Slack, Bronson Methodist Hospital sought reimbursement from Titan for medical treatment it had provided the injured driver. Titan denied the claim, asserting American Country was responsible because it insured other vehicles owned by the commercial transportation company. The trial court ruled American Country was liable for benefits and American Country appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that §3114(4) applied to extend no-fault liability to the insurer of the vehicle owner, which in this case was the commercial transportation companies. In this regard, the court said:
“Caselaw demonstrates that where subsection (1) applies but an insurer is not available, as is the case here, subsection (4) applies next. … Indeed, this Court has stated that subsections (1) and (4) together establish ‘the general order of priority.’ … Thus, if an exception provided in subsections (2), (3), or (5) would apply but insurance is not available, subsections (1) and (4) apply in tandem. It is always possible that a person injured in a motor vehicle accident will have a personal policy and insurance will thus be available under subsection (1). Under American Country’s argument, because subsection (1) could theoretically apply, subsection (4) could never apply. This Court must avoid an interpretation that would render statutory language surplusage. … Instead, subsection (4) plainly governs which insurance applies when insurance is unavailable under subsection (1). That is, ‘[e]xcept as provided in subsection (1) to (3)’ at the beginning of subsection (4) means ‘if insurance is not available under subsections (1) to (3).’ As applied in the present case, under subsection (4), because American Country insured other vehicles owned by [the commercial transportation companies], it is responsible for the claims in these cases."
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed in the matter involving Hughes, and affirmed in the matter involving Slack.
Judge Gleicher, noting there were two valid interpretations of the applicable statute, issued a separate concurrence and said:
“Were we writing on a clean slate, I would hold the priority rules set forth in MCL 500.3114 ambiguous when applied to PIP claims arising from commercial vehicle accidents such as the two involved here.”
